ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies

Your browser does not appear to support JavaScript, or JavaScript is currently disabled. This page uses JavaScript for certain types of content, so we strongly recommend that you enable JavaScript for browsing this site.

The Rhetorical Invention of Comics: A Selection of Rodolphe Töpffer's Late Reflections on Composing Image-Text Narratives

The father of the modern comic in many ways is Rodolphe Töpffer, whose light satiric picture stories, starting in the mid-1800's, employed cartooning and panel borders, and featured the first independent combination of words and pictures seen in Europe.
— Scott McCloud, Understanding Comics

Introduction

The short texts translated below and my observations on their significance are from Rodolphe Töpffer's 1845 Essai de Physiognomonie,[1] and documents observations and 'lessons' learned over nearly two decades of applied writing work in visual narrative and graphic storytelling. Anachronistic histories of comics notwithstanding (cf. McCloud, Understanding), Töpffer's essay may also be the first formal study of comics, particularly in terms of examining methodologies of multimodal composition, rhetorical significance, and printing and publishing technologies. In chapter three of the essay, for example, Töpffer addresses the potential of new innovations in lithographic printing techniques for adding color to his little books.

In the two (of twelve) chapters translated here, Töpffer offers a self-reflective rhetorical analysis of 'literature in prints' as a multimodal practice and pedagogical method, with a focus on engaging with cultural and political critique, often by means of parody—particularly for students with little to no formal skill/training in the fine arts. Much of his focus on minimal skill and ease of composition may be a result of his own dashed aspirations to become a serious painter, as David Kunzle suggests: "He visualized the funny little worlds around him as easily in pictures as in words, and wanted to be a painter like his father. Fortunately he was afflicted with poor eyesight at an early age, which led him to evolve a manner of sketching as quick as thought and quick with ideas, so that he mutated almost unconsciously into pictorial storytelling: the narrative comic strip" (Father of the Comic Strip 3). Töpffer's affliction—a degenerative eye disease—developed while he was in Paris studying Greek classics and modern French literature, which, as nineteenth-century French literary historian Philippe Willems argues, "forced [Töpffer] to reconsider his options" (227).

After completing his university studies, Töpffer returned home to Geneva, starting a position as a schoolmaster (and, later, owned his own school) from 1822 until 1832, during which time he started composing narrative comic strips. In 1832, he was appointed as "chargé de cours in rhetoriqué et belle lettres (modern literature), the equivalent of assistant professor in the United States today"; in 1835, he was promoted "to titular (or tenured) professor" (Kunzle, Father of the Comic Strip 57). According to Willems, Töpffer held the first position of its kind (in rhetoric), having earned the position for his work on writing and illustrating "travelogues, short stories, aesthetic treatises, art criticism, political journalism, and a critical edition of speeches by Demosthenes, [and] theater comedies" (227). By 1842, Töpffer had earned an appointment of Chair in the Rhetoriqué et Belle Lettres department, a position he held until his death in 1846.

A year before his death, Töpffer wrote Essai de Physiognomonie, documenting his reflections and experience writing and drawing comics—a kind of artist's statement—addressing the values, skills, and methods of composing comics; of the essay's twelve chapters, two appear here: chapters three and four. In the third chapter, Töpffer explains some aims and purposes of comics ("to invent some kind of drama"), required composition/drawing skills ("even people with little talent could exercise a useful influence by using literature in prints"), and "autographic methods." In chapter four, he addresses some visual composition techniques ("it is entirely a means of conventional imitation") and the benefits of visual composition ("the graphic line is nevertheless a method that suffices, moreover, with all the requirements of expression, and especially those of clarity").

My purpose in translating this text is to recover some of the lost history of the invention of comics as a form and method of writing within a chronological framework. Where anachronistic histories of comics offer much in the way of understanding the form and practice of writing comics, Töpffer's late reflections on the formal (and rhetorical) invention of the form offers an opportunity to theoretically ground the practice in image/text, multimodal, and mixed-media composition practices. Viewed chronologically, Töpffer may even be considered one of the earliest adopters (and perhaps the first practitioner) of multimodal writing.

A Note on the Translation

This is a translation of a handwritten transcript found on Google Books, which I have compared to Thierry Groensteen's 2003 French edition.[2] I have attempted to remain faithful to Töpffer's distinctive writing style, including sections that may, at first, be difficult to fully grasp given the complexity of Töpffer's sentence structures—and especially in terms of comma usage. Below the translation, I have included a transcript of the original French for comparison.[3]

Chapter Three: How Literature in Prints Can Independently Cultivate an Advanced Culture in the Arts of Design. Advantages of the Autographic Method.

To make literature in prints, it is not necessary to establish oneself as an artisan given to drawing and everything that entails to the bitter dregs. It is not meant to be put at the service of uniquely grotesque fantasy from the pencil of a simple jester [un crayon naturellement bouffon[4]]. It is also not to stage a proverb or a representation of a pun; it is really to invent some kind of drama, whose coordinated parts are successfully designed as a whole; it is, good or bad, tragic or lighthearted, crazy or serious, to make a book, and not only to trace out a moral or to set a refrain in couplets.

But there are books and there are books, and many very profound, many very worthy of admiration for the beautiful things they contain, which are not usually quickly perused by the largest number of people. Of the most mediocre, provided that they are sound in themselves and engaging for the strong of spirit, they often exercise a better understanding of an action and, in this regard, are more advantageous. This is why we think that with some talent in line drawing, along with some discipline, even those with undistinguished skills can exercise a very useful influence by using literature in prints.

And the proof that one does not need to have extensive knowledge or skill [d'habileté] to make literature in prints is that we have done it ourselves; since, without having acquired any real understanding of graphic representation, and even without being primarily preoccupied with anything other than to produce, for our own amusement, a kind of reality from the most foolish whims of our fantasies. From this have emerged small books like Mr. Jabot, Mr. Crépin, or Mr. un tel,[5] which have been adopted by a large public, quite happily. If only the one or two critics who attack the failings of these little books, or who tease their stylistic follies, would instead emphasize a useful way of thinking, is it not true that they would well have reached readers who would not go searching for their sermons, as well as those that are rarely found in novels?

In any event, it is in drawing these little books without knowing how to draw, and by the results of quick graphic representation of the people who are figured—even when they are often the most absurd members, by their traits or stature—without stopping to say for better or for worse what they are meant to express, we have collected some observations on physiognomy that we want to explain: not as another grand system, but as another small book. Here we would like to suggest above all, the appealing advantage presented by the autographic method in a field of study for which the primary concern is the power to explain by graphic examples, which have value only when traced directly from the pen of the writer, and only to the extent that such examples are necessary.

In addition—and incidentally, as much as it is the question of literature in prints, which is to say a series of sketches where accuracy counts for little and where, by contrast, the clarity of the idea, quickly, elementarily expressed, counts for everything—nothing is comparable to the speed, the convenience, the economy of the autographic method that requires neither an intermediary engraver, nor that we draw in reverse for the printed image to be found correct, nor to wait more than an hour before the image is ready to be etched onto the engraving stone,[6] ready to produce one thousand, [or] two thousand copies. For the greatest speed and least embarrassment, we will not employ, ourselves, such a process only crude enough for printing invoices [factures] and circulars, but we have enough practice to be well convinced that its use has the potential to be perfected indefinitely, to the point of producing equivalent results as those of etchings supported by dry point and burin.[7]

Chapter Four (of Twelve): Advantages and Properties of Line Drawing.

If, as from our point of view, the autographic method presents incontestable advantages, those of the method of simple line drawing are just as obvious.

Indeed, although it is entirely a means of conventional imitation, in the sense that it does not exist in nature and that it disappears into the complete imitation of an object, the graphic line is nevertheless a method that suffices, moreover, with all the requirements of expression, especially those of clarity. In this last respect, in particular, that of clarity, the bare simplicity that it comprises, contributes to rendering a clearer sense and an easier understanding for a common mindset. This is due to the fact that it gives the object in its essential characteristics, omitting those that are secondary, in such a way, for example, that a small child will depict imperfectly on a canvas, according to all the requirements of complex art the figure of a man, an animal, or an object, [but] will never fail to be quickly understood if, extracted by the means of simple line drawing, the figure is stripped of extra details [dénudée d'accessoires] and reduced to its essential characteristics.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

Now, here is a man, a gosling, a wheelbarrow, and above all here is an ass, since it is a four-legged animal, with long ears, a large stomach, and no one can mistake it; but with shading, we finish off this ass; its shading becomes more or less confused with similar shades: its shape combines with other shapes, as they might be arranged in a painting. Already, the ass is no longer an ass, at least for the little child, in the same way it is when reduced to a few simple expressions [termes]; that is, made of a few traits that are casually aligned.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

If I disrupt the overall form, the clarity remains unchanged, because other than the principal characteristics surviving the rupture and because of the graphic simplicity [of the image], the [viewer's attention] is not distracted from the principal object, and the least-trained eye fills the lacunae of the contour with detail, and otherwise the [principal characteristics] make uniform the gray shades of the skin, in harmony [harmonisant] with the gray belly.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

Another advantage of the graphic line is the complete freedom that it leaves with regard to the choice of the features to present, a freedom that no longer allows a fuller imitation. Should I want an expression of dazed awe[8] (No. I), of unpleasant and sharp humor, of stupor, of silly curiosity and indiscretion all together (No. II, III, IV), I confine myself to the graphic signs that express those sentiments by releasing them from all the others associated with them or those that would distract from a more complete imitation. This, above all, allows the clumsy to indicate sentiments and passions well enough, in the sense that it helps their weaknesses in not having to express more than one thing at a time by a means that is effective precisely because of what it is isolated from. And note it well, even the least-practiced eye supplies the gaps of the imitation, with ease and sincerity, above all else, that works entirely to the advantage of the designer.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

Now here we have some heads, of a gentleman and a lady, which exhibit broken lines to the greatest degree, of the most neglected discontinuities in contour, and nevertheless still, that, for the designer, are just as much abbreviated forms that advantageously conceal the absurdity [ânerie[9]] of making an exact and complete design, without doing much harm its vitality, to the expression or to the emotion of the figure; they are, for the viewer, so many blanks that her/his imagination populates, fills, completes by habit, without effort and with fidelity. This leads us to think that in making lively designs, sketched, quickly, there is everything to gain by being an ass and, without daring to affirm something so strange in an absolute manner, we would go as far to as to say, that in doing daily sketches intended to shed light on a lively and distinct [nette[10]] idea, the sentiment that is found is more rewarding [plus heureux] than the knowledge that imitates; for the briskness that does damage to the forms and also skips over the details better serves the wit [of the image] than the cautious ability to politely fill in the forms by marking the details. Finally, as in all pleasant subjects, or crazy fantasies, an audacious absurdity [ânerie] that jumps out a bit too brutally onto an idea that one has in mind, at the risk of omitting some features and of breaking some of the forms, has often reached the aim better than one with a well-exercised talent, more timid, that slowly follows all the meanderings of an elegant execution and a faithful representation. In addition, this explains why, in these kinds of subjects, the English win out over the French; it is because they are, generally, artists who are much less precise and much less scrupulous. This is why, dealing with the high and mighty and without much respect for forms, their sketches of current events achieve a vigorous comic buffoonery and humorous verve, which is not commonly reached by a witty pencil, but very strict and correct, even in farcical, even in the eccentric, work of the French.

The ease offered by the graphic line in omitting some imitative features of an image that are not the aim of the image, so as to use only those that are essential, causes it to resemble written or spoken language, which has the property of being able, with much greater ease, in a description or in a narrative, of removing entire parts of depicted images or of narrative events, leaving behind only those traits that are expressive and that contribute to the purpose [l'objet]. In other words, the graphic line, by the very reason of what meanings it makes clear, even without the imitation being complete, admittedly, demands enormous omissions of properties and details, with the result that, whereas in a finished painting the slightest discontinuity in the image simultaneously marks an eyesore and a gap, in the graphic line, by contrast, monstrous discontinuities are neither stains nor gaps; even when they are not, as often happens, desired by the author and merely the happy use of a brevity method.

In conclusion, and to end with line drawing, it is incomparably advantageous when, as in an ongoing story, it is useful to draw cursive sketches just waiting to be strongly critiqued, and that, as links in a series, figure only as recollections of ideas, as symbols, as rhetorical figures scattered throughout a speech,[11] and not as integral chapters of the subject.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

And so, for example, we remember having seen a story in print, not just this symbol returning repeatedly to express the turmoil [orages] of a somewhat brutal paternal education, nor this other only reminding also repeatedly that the hero of a book is a Jackass [Aliboron[12]] that constantly changes trades [métier], but also hyperbolic truths [véritables hyperboles] graphically executed in a manner that has the nimbleness of hyperboles, written or spoken. In the first case, it applies to the same Aliboron that, having become a wine merchant, receives a visit from some political friends who help him to go bankrupt, and it is the quick efficacy of the means employed that is addressed in the hyperbole. In the second case, it applies to the same Aliboron who, having become a traveling salesman, goes from door to door selling an image metaphysics [métaphysique pittoresque[13]], and the hyperbole includes both the multiplicity and the obsequious importunity of his opportunistic visits.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

Alternative content

If you are reading this text please install Adobe Flash Player. Once installed, Flash will allow you to play the ImageTexT Comics Viewer here in your browser.

Notes

[1]This essay has been translated by Ellen Wiese in her 1965 Enter the comics..., but it is not currently available from the publisher, University of Nebraska Press. In addition, the rationale for this translation is grounded in some questionable choices in Wiese's English version of the text. I am currently working on a book-length project that includes a translation of this essay alongside two other essays and one of Töpffer's essays on his pedagogical philosophy. This book-length translation is under contract and in pre-production with Parlor Press.

[3]I would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers at ImageTexT for offering feedback and guidance on the initial version of this piece. Their comments and suggestions have helped strengthen this translation.

[9]ânerie may also mean stupidity, silliness, inanity, or nonsense. The choice to use 'absurdity' in place of these other possible translations is informed David Kunzle's biography of Töpffer, Father of the Comic Strip, and Philippe Willems's analysis of Töpffer's conflicted relationship with Romanticism and with Søren Kierkegaard's (a contemporary of Töpffer's) philosophy of 'the Absurd' (Willems, 2009).

[10]Nette is the feminine conjugation of net, and may have a variety of meanings, including, 'clear', 'pure', 'clean', and 'fair copy'.

[11]Perhaps a reference to Demosthenes' speeches, and the critical edition of those speeches that Töpffer edited and published earlier in his career.

[12]This is the name of a donkey in the Jean de la Fontaine's (1621-1695) fables represented as a foolish donkey (an ass) that attempts to play the role of a connoisseur.

[13]While one reviewer asked that I reconsider the rendering of this phrase (suggesting that it is an idiom), I have decided to use this translation. During the course of my research for my forthcoming book-length translation of Töpffer's work, I discovered that the Essai de Physiognomonie was partially a response to the following section of Hegel's lectures on the fine arts (1822-29):
"About physiognomy I will only mention here that if the work of sculpture, which has the human figure as its basis, is to show the body, in its bodily forms, presents not only the divine and human substance of the spirit in a merely general way but also the particular character of a specific individual in this portrayal of the Divine, we would also have to embark on an exhaustive discussion of what parts, traits, and configurations of the body are completely adequate to express a specific inner mood. We are instigated to such a study by classical sculptures to which we must allow that in fact they do express the Divine and the characters of particular gods. To admit this is not to maintain that the correspondence between the expression of spirit and the visible form is only a matter of accident and caprice and not something absolutely necessary. In this matter each organ must in general be considered from two points of view, the purely physical one and that of spiritual expression. It is true that in this connection we may not proceed after the manner of Gall who makes the spirit into a bump on the skull." (Aesthetics 716)
See my curated slideshow juxtaposing Töpffer's work with these selections from Hegel's Aesthetics during the 18—22 Jan. 2016 issue of In Media Res: A Media Commons Project on the theme, "Philosophy in/as/of Media." (A direct link to this project was not made available at the time of submission.)

All content is (c) ImageTexT 2004 - 2018 unless otherwise noted. All authors
and artists retain copyright unless otherwise noted.
All images are used with permission or are permissible under fair use. Please
see our legal
notice.